That probabilities do not ensure outcomes—something every blackjack player who has busted while hitting against a face card has long known—has escaped Silver’s detractors. Brendan Nyhan at CJR and Ben Jacobs at Daily Download have emptied an ample volume of bullets into this barrel of fish. Ezra Klein put it succinctly: “If Mitt Romney wins on election day, it doesn’t mean Silver’s model was wrong. After all, the model has been fluctuating between giving Romney a 25 percent and 40 percent chance of winning the election. That’s a pretty good chance!”

CNN Exposed, Emmy Winning Former CNN Journalist, Amber Lyon Blows The Whistle, Let me repeat that.CNN is paid by the US government for reporting on some events, and not reporting on others. The Obama Administration pays for CNN content

Sunday, October 7, 2012 10:15

CNN Exposed

Emmy Winning Former CNN Journalist, Amber Lyon, Blows The Whistle….

Simultaneously Answers One of my questions….

by sundancecracker

The central issue is Media Controlled by The Obama Administration, and more specifically CNN – as a VERIFIED tool for propaganda and disinformation.

Within this Canadian video report you will find footage of a CNN story on Egypt and Mohammed Al Zawahiri. It was produced by well-known CNN Journalist Nick Robertson. The entire video is excellent, but the pertinent aspect is at the 1:30 mark.

In the previous thread I asked two central questions. The Second Question was:

Why would CNN [or CNNi] refuse to air the Nick Robertson report with Muhammed Al Zawahiri (brother of Ayman Al Zawahiri) that clearly shows the Egyptian uprising was 100% in response to his call for protests for release of the Blind sheik on 9-11.? Why would the “most trusted name in news“, hide the report showing the truth, and instead allow the false narrative to be sold, by them, to the American electorate?

Amber Lyon provides the answer(s).

CNN never aired the Nick Robertson report in Egypt because it completely contradicted the Obama Administration, and Hillary Clinton State Department, Egyptian assertions. In short, it proved they were lying – BIG TIME. The refusal to air the real reasoning for the Egyptian Embassy assault was intentional protection of President Obama specifically orchestrated by the CNN News group. Specific, intentional, lying.

Apparently they have a history of this no-one knew about. UNTIL NOW.

Amber Lyon is an award-winning journalist who worked for CNN.

She says she was ordered to report fake stories, delete unfriendly stories adverse to the Obama administration (like the Nick Robertson report), and construct stories in specific manners while working for the left-wing network.

CNN is paid by foreign and domestic Government agencies for specific content.

Let me repeat that.

CNN is paid by the US government for reporting on some events, and not reporting on others. The Obama Administration pays for CNN content.

Let that sink in.

Additionally CNN and CNN International are also paid by foreign governments to avoid stories that are damaging, and construct narratives that show them in a better, albeit false, light.

Amber Lyon is a three-time Emmy winning investigative journalist and photographer. She accuses CNN of being “fake news.”

Back in March 2011, CNN sent a four person team to Bahrain to cover the Arab Spring. Once there, the crew was the subject of extreme intimidation amongst other things, but they were able to record some fantastic footage. As Glenn Greenwald of the UK’s Guardian writes in his blockbuster arti…:

“In the segment, Lyon interviewed activists as they explicitly described their torture at the hands of government forces, while family members recounted their relatives’ abrupt disappearances. She spoke with government officials justifying the imprisonment of activists. And the segment featured harrowing video footage of regime forces shooting unarmed demonstrators, along with the mass arrests of peaceful protesters. In sum, the early 2011 CNN segment on Bahrain presented one of the starkest reports to date of the brutal repression embraced by the US-backed regime.

Despite these accolades, and despite the dangers their own journalists and their sources endured to produce it, CNN International (CNNi) never broadcast the documentary. Even in the face of numerous inquiries and complaints from their own employees inside CNN, it continued to refuse to broadcast the program or even provide any explanation for the decision. To date, this documentary has never aired on CNNi.

Having just returned from Bahrain, Lyon says she “saw first-hand that these regime claims were lies, and I couldn’t believe CNN was making me put what I knew to be government lies into my reporting.”

Here is a segment of the Bahrain report that Amber Lyon and her team put together. CNNi refused to allow it to air because the Bahrain Government had paid them not to show it.

When Amber Lyon recognized the extent of the reasoning, she challenged CNN. CNN told her to be quiet, and began to view her as a risk. She knew, and found out, too much.

Amber is now trying to tell the story, the real story, of what is going on behind the closed doors of US Media entities. Amber has created her own website, and additionally as noted in the Guardian Article she is trying to share the truth of the deceptions.

What Amber Lyon describes is exactly the reason why CNN never aired the Nick Robertson interview with Muhammed Al Zawahiri in Egypt.

Amber recently did a web interview with Alex Jones on InfoWars. Generally the TreeHouse does not appreciate Alex Jones. He is wound up tighter than piano wire, and unfortunately much of his truth is diminished because of the hype he places upon it.

Alex Jones is easy to disregard as a “conspiracy theorist”, not because of what he says, but because of how he says it. Everything is desperate and dangerous with him. That said, the words and explanations of Ms. Lyon in the discussion/interview are poignant and vastly informative. So I share the video with you so you can hear from Amber herself exactly what is being described and articulated. It is critical to listen towhat she says, not just about Bahrain but also about what the Obama administration is specifically doing. Just try to overlook the Alex Jones-ism, and focus on what Amber Lyon is sharing.

Or the reaction of a governor of the opposing party praising the reaction by the president? Make sure to mention that this was done on Fox, despite an attempt to set the opposing party governor for a partisan statement.

That said, I do think Bush got a raw deal on Katrina. The true outrages were the mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana. Working from memory, with literally weeks of warning, the mayor (local response being the first line of defense) couldn't even keep hundreds of buses, which should have been used for getting folks without their own vehicles ouf to town from getting sunk-- and so very much more. However the words of condemnation were missing in the pravdas. Frankly one suspects that he being a black Dem and Bush being the preferred target had something to do with it.

The Dem governor of LA was missing in action, even while Rep Gov Haley Barbor of Mississippi, who faced the same problems in the same degree, did a fine job to media silence. Again one suspects pravda partisanship to have something to do with it.

To my old fashioned way of thinking the federal government is the third line of defense (after local and state) but well, having exoriated Bush, the progressive pravdas are all to glad to support the notion of yet another area of federal pre-emption.

My grumpiness aside, here there was a genuinely huge catastropic storm that understandably overwhelmed local capabilities and federal action (e.g. Army Corps of Engineers helping pump out the tunnels and the subways quite the correct thing to do. Naturally the President preened, and the pravdas praised, but , , , well, , , there it is.

==================

ASAP"...So that we are clear on this all, here is the record:''It took Barack Obama seven days to visit Joplin, Missouri after a tornado wiped out half of the town and killed 120 people......It took Barack Obama 14 days to visit the Gulf Coast after the BP oil spill....Obama declined to visit Tennessee after the historic 2010 "1000-year floods."...Obama ignored the Texas wildfires when over 400 homes were lost....And, of course, Obama ignored the calls for help from Benghazi.......But it took Barack Obama only one day to visit the hurricane damage on the East Coast. Then again, there’s an election next week.''

Or the reaction of a governor of the opposing party praising the reaction by the president? Make sure to mention that this was done on Fox, despite an attempt to set the opposing party governor for a partisan statement.

FEMA's vaunted "lean forward" strategy that called for advanced staging of supplies for emergency distribution failed to live up to its billing in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. In fact, the agency appears to have been completely unprepared to distribute bottled water to Hurricane Sandy victims when the storm hit this Monday. In contrast to its stated policy, FEMA failed to have any meaningful supplies of bottled water -- or any other supplies, for that matter -- stored in nearby facilities as it had proclaimed it would on its website. This was the case despite several days advance warning of the impending storm.

FEMA only began to solicit bids for vendors to provide bottled water for distribution to Hurricane Sandy victims on Friday, sending out a solicitation request for 2.3 million gallons of bottled water at the FedBizOpps.gov website. Bidding closed at 4:30 pm eastern.

Breitbart News spoke with contracting officer Annette Wright, who said that the winning vendor would be required to deliver the 2.3 million gallons of bottled water to an East Farmingdale, New York distribution center that was listed in the solicitation request by Monday, November 5th. Ms. Wright was unable to say when or how the water would be delivered from the distribution center to needy Hurricane Sandy victims in New Jersey, Staten Island, Long Island, and other boroughs of New York City. Vendors "are currently being evaluated," she said, and when the vendors are announced, they will provide information on how local distribution will occur.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When night falls in the Rockaways, the hoods come out.

Ever since Sandy strafed the Queens peninsula and tore up the boardwalk, it’s become an often lawless place where cops are even scarcer than electrical power and food. Locals say they are arming themselves with guns, baseball bats, booby traps — even a bow and arrow — to defend against looters.

Thugs have been masquerading as Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) workers, knocking on doors in the dead of night. But locals say the real workers have been nowhere in sight, causing at least one elected official — who fears a descent into anarchy if help doesn’t arrive soon — to call for the city to investigate the utility.

PHOTOS: HURRICANE SANDY'S PATH OF DESTRUCTION

LIVE BLOG: THE AFTERMATH OF HURRICANE SANDY

Further exacerbating desperate conditions, it could take at least a month to repair the the bridge that connects the Rockaways to the city subway system, officials said.

“We booby-trapped our door and keep a baseball bat beside our bed,” said Danielle Harris, 34, rummaging through donated supplies as children rode scooters along half-block chunk of the boardwalk that had marooned into the middle of Beach 91st St.

“We heard gunshots for three nights in a row,” said Harris, who believed they came from the nearby housing projects.

Carly Ruggieri, 27, who lives in water-damaged house on the block, said she barricades her door with a bed frame. “There have been people in power department uniforms knocking on doors and asking if they’re okay, but at midnight.”

And another local surfer said he has knives, a machete and a bow and arrow on the ready. Gunshots and slow-rolling cars have become a common fixture of the night since Hurricane Sandy.

“I would take a looter with a boa. If I felt threatened I would definitely use it,” said Keone Singlehurst, 42. “Its like the Wild West. A borderline lawless situation.”

City Councilman James Sanders (D-Far Rockaway) said he fears the situation will devolve into anarchy.

“We have an explosive mix here,” said Sanders. “People will take matters into their own hands.”

Walter Meyer, 37, lives in Park Slope but often surfs in the Rockaways. He said it’s not the place it was before the storm.

"After sunset everyone locks their doors,” said Meyer, as he loaded up a solar panel from a factory in the Brooklyn Navy Yard to bring to local residents. "They're trying to find whatever weapons they can find. Some people are even using bows and arrows."

"For Staten Island resident Deb Smith, whose house was flooded by the storm surge from Sandy, FEMA has been a savior.

""What a hell of an organization. I got on the phone with them yesterday, I got my claim number in already, the guy said he's going to call me in a couple of days," she says. "He's going to come out and estimate, and they said, listen, whatever doesn't work, they're going to help us put stuff in storage.""

No doubt NPR will be checking in with Debbie in a few days

More seriously, "IF" FEMA has improved since Katrina, that's a good thing, but IMHO self-reliance is the first line of defense. Army Engineers pumping out tunnels and subways, providing generators (have they been doing this? I don't know) seem a good and appropriate use of federal resources to me, but I for one would like to see more reference to "Ya know, waiting until there is a storm bearing down to run down to the supermarket to buy food and water, to the hardware store to buy gasoline jugs and to the gas station to fill them may leave you facing empty shelves, empty gas tanks, and long lines-- all when you don't have the time and generally everything is in gridlock."

Or you can wait for FEMA to select its vendors, pay them (you ever tried getting the govt to pay promptly on a contract even when there is no crisis?) and for the vendors to get to you.

Also a good idea would be laws that allowed people the necessary tools to defend themselves, their homes, and their property. Granny may not be able to draw a bow and aim the thing, but a suitable handgun should be well within her capabilities.

Good citation and I agree. NPR does have certain standards of integrity.

Still, I doubt in the chaos of Sandy's aftermath whether anyone will be going back to Debbie to see if the promises that were made her that so impressed her were kept. I should have been clearer in making my point.

Following the deluge here last week I watched this show in its entirety yesterday. It certainly masquerades as being a balanced show in search of the truth.

Host David Gregory asked his administration guest a very tough question about the lack of security at Benghazi. I'll come back and add the text in with exact quotes, but after he got his non-answer at quarter after the hour he said that's all we have time for and went on to break.

He made no point whatsoever to expose or correct the lie put forth by the Barack Obama administration through Ambassador Susan Rice on his show on Sept 16, 2012:

See the Rice interview:http://video.msnbc.msn.com/meet-the-press/49051702------------Meanwhile, did CBS bury the contradictory parts of their President Obama video until too late to do damage for political or editorial reasons? With the space available on the internet, why are we not entitled to see entire on-the-record interviews in something close to real time? -----------BD, I know I lose more moderate voters with my liberal bias rants, but I lose me if I don't speak up on what I see that troubles me deeply. It isn't that there aren't enough right wing sources; it is that I resent having to go there to get key information and it troubles me to see what others are often missing. I agree with you 100% on your point about other types of unreported stories and under-reported stories in our media. The China-Japan islands dispute is a great example. American press is audience and ratings oriented with very little interest in widening our knowledge. That is one of the great benefits of this forum where much of this does come up with referrals to good sources to read.

BD, I know I lose more moderate voters with my liberal bias rants, but I lose me if I don't speak up on what I see that troubles me deeply. It isn't that there aren't enough right wing sources; it is that I resent having to go there to get key information and it troubles me to see what others are often missing. I agree with you 100% on your point about other types of unreported stories and under-reported stories in our media. The China-Japan islands dispute is a great example. American press is audience and ratings oriented with very little interest in widening our knowledge. That is one of the great benefits of this forum where much of this does come up with referrals to good sources to read.

Doug, many thanks for the reply. As I think you know, I respect you a great deal and appreciate your thoughts generally and your thoughtful response here.

I understand your point, believe me. And I think that "I lose me if I don't speak up" is a particularly important point. I do want to say, though, that perhaps there are some starting points that you may consider somewhat. First, as I said, all of the fracas that began due to a post prior to Sandy was due, it seems to me because I made a point about a particular day, and then several on the forum took that as an opportunity to lambast damn near everything related to media in the past 4 years (I embellish, I know). If you could have conceded that coverage of a hurricane was important, even if that meant that other things were left off the air, I think that would help... and it wouldn't have lost a "more moderate voter" who DIDN'T disagree with your overall point to begin with.

Then I think we are back to disagreeing occassionally, agreeing with a fair amount of consistency and at least understanding the basis of where we are coming from. Today is a good day already. Now, off to the polls.

"If you could have conceded that coverage of a hurricane was important, even if that meant that other things were left off the air, I think that would help... and it wouldn't have lost a "more moderate voter" who DIDN'T disagree with your overall point to begin with."

Oct. 17. That’s the date on which President Obama’s position on the Benghazi, Libya, attack peaked as a national issue. The night before, in a town hall debate moderated by CNN’s Candy Crowley, the president made a spectacle of noting that on the day after the Benghazi tragedy, he stood in the Rose Garden and called it an “act of terror.” His opponent, Mitt Romney, seemed convinced otherwise, prompting a controversial fact-check by Crowley. The fuss over all of this prompted politically involved Americans to debate just how Obama had categorized the tragedy.

Cue the “60 Minutes” video. Or not.

In a passionate post today, Bret Baier of Fox News hammers CBS News for waiting till Nov. 4 to post a bit of video quite relevant to all of this. In it, Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” asks the president about Benghazi. The question was posed on Sept. 12, the same day of the Rose Garden address:

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?OBAMA: Well it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other. The president’s response packs it all: 1) Avoidance of the question; 2) refusal to use the term “terrorism”; 3) reliance on talking points about bringing people to justice. In other words, big news.

Had this clip embedded itself in the news cycle after the town-hall debate, the following would have happened:

1) CBS News would have reaped millions of page views;

2) Mitt Romney’s slip-up in the town-hall debate over this issue would no longer look like as a slip-up; it’d look like a quest for accountability;

3) Team Obama would have had to spend days responding to questions about the discrepancy between what he said in the town-hall debate and what he’d told Kroft; and

4) After that town-hall debate, Romney pretty much dropped Libya as a talking point. In a strategic move much observed by pundits, he declined to pound away on the topic in the final presidential debate, which centered on foreign policy. Had CBS News released what it had on hand, perhaps Romney would have had charged ahead with a Libya message.

Now the clip is way past its sell-by date. It’ll cause a ruckus among media critics and Libya geeks, and that’s about it. As insulting as CBS News’s timing is its position on the matter. It has issued a short statement that skirts the issue in the hope of changing the subject, perfect symmetry for Benghazi: “We’re proud of our Benghazi coverage, which from Libya to Washington has been the most comprehensive original reporting of any network.”

Left unaddressed is how this possibly could have happened. An honest mistake? A producer who missed the second debate? Whatever the cause, the episode grinds to the detriment of Kroft, who had the prescience to ask the president the question that would preoccupy Washington for weeks. Perhaps it was he who agitated to release this clip.

Critics will elevate CBS News’s selective video publishing to a prime exhibit in their brief that the mainstream media is protecting Obama. Barring a better explanation from CBS News, that’s a hard case to contradict. The only note of mitigation for the network is that it didn’t wait till after the election to publish the video or suppress it altogether.

"If you could have conceded that coverage of a hurricane was important, even if that meant that other things were left off the air, I think that would help... and it wouldn't have lost a "more moderate voter" who DIDN'T disagree with your overall point to begin with."

Or the reaction of a governor of the opposing party praising the reaction by the president? Make sure to mention that this was done on Fox, despite an attempt to set the opposing party governor for a partisan statement.

Hurricane Sandy: Katrina on the Hudson?posted at 5:11 pm on November 13, 2012 by Mary Katharine HamGlenn Reynolds notices similarities, in USA Today:

One parallel: A late evacuation order. Even before the storm struck, weatherblogger Brendan Loy — famous for calling for early evacuation of New Orleans before Katrina struck — criticizing Mayor Bloomberg for not ordering early or extensive enough evacuations in New York, and for making the “ignorant” statement that Sandy wouldn’t be as bad as a hurricane…

After Sandy struck, some areas did worse than others, and FEMA — as with Katrina — got bad press. Manhattan was hit hard, but the outer boroughs suffered more. Staten Island residents say they were forgotten by relief efforts and one press report called the island “a giant mud puddle of dead dreams.” Adding insult to injury, when another nor’easter approached the area FEMA closed its Staten Island office “due to weather.” Time called it “the island that New York City forgot.” Rudy Giuliani called FEMA’s performance “as bad as Katrina.”But there is one difference:

So: late warnings, confused and inadequate responses, FEMA foul-ups and suffering refugees. In this regard, Sandy is looking a lot like Katrina on the Hudson. Well, things go wrong in disasters. That’s why they’re called disasters. But there is one difference.

Under Katrina, the national press credulously reported all sorts of horror stories: rapes, children with slit throats, even cannibalism. These stories were pretty much all false. Worse, as Lou Dolinar cataloged later, the press also ignored many very real stories of heroism and competence. We haven’t seen such one-sided coverage of Sandy, where the press coverage of problems, though somewhat muted before the election, hasn’t been marked by absurd rumors or ham-handed efforts to push a particular narrative.It took days for FEMA to hit the ground in hard-hit parts of NYC. More than a week after the storm, FEMA representatives were just getting on the ground and opening temporary offices in New Jersey. When a nor’easter blew in, several of their offices shut down because of— wait for it— severe weather.

An army of FEMA volunteers is now housed in the USTS Kennedy near Staten Island, a 540-foot training ship. They are well-meaning, no doubt, and yet the State Island FEMA office was one of those closed for inclement weather last week, in one of the hardest hit parts of the city.

Citizen groups stepped in:

Victims of an unforgiving one-two punch from superstorm Sandy and a nor’easter that both hit New York’s Staten Island say FEMA has forgotten them…

Punch-drunk residents’ ire is also aimed at the city — which is going door-to-door to order people out of their homes — at the American Red Cross, which some say has not done enough and at police and firefighters. One group of residents, calling themselves the “Brown Cross,” is patrolling the devastated streets, armed with walkie-talkies, and helping residents clear debris and pump water from their flooded homes.

“We’ve done more for our community than FEMA, the Red Cross and the National Guard combined, directly hitting houses and people in need,” Frank Recce, the 24-year-old longshoreman and Iraq Army veteran who organized the group, told FoxNews.com.Occupy, too!

FEMA says 1,600 people are using aid for hotels, but there are thousands more displaced, and a rental-market pinch. Church members helped find housing for victims in Middletown, N.J when FEMA’s help was late or misguided:

Colon has been trying to find housing for church members who lost everything. A few people slept stretched across chairs in the sanctuary after the storm. The nearest FEMA assistance center is in Union Beach, about five miles away, and many storm victims lost their cars to flooding.

Colon says she knows FEMA has offered some of the displaced people housing, but miles from their neighborhoods.

“It’s not doable if you put them a mile and a half out. They have to have transportation to their job. [FEMA wants] to offer help, but it has to be helpful to the person,” she said, especially storm victims with children in school who value their community. “They lost their house already; now they’re going to lose everything else.”FEMA trailers are headed to the area, but no state has requested or claimed them yet, and it has not yet been determined where they’ll end up. Mercifully, FEMA Director Craig Fugate assures residents they’re not toxic, unlike some Katrina-era FEMA trailers, which were found to be contaminated with formaldehyde.

Here’s FEMA’s assessment of its own performance, by the numbers:

Since Hurricane Sandy struck New York, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has approved more than $338 million to help individuals and families recover from the disaster.FEMA provides the following snapshot of the disaster recovery effort as of Nov. 12:

More than 176,000 New Yorkers have contacted FEMA for information or registered for assistance with FEMA and more than $338 million has been approved. More than 91,000 have applied through the online application site at www.disasterassistance.gov.

30 Disaster Recovery Centers (DRC) are open in the nine declared counties. These include mobile sites as well as fixed sites, and to date more than 12,000 survivors have been assisted at DRCs in New York.

More than 1,100 Community Relations (CR) specialists are strategically positioned throughout affected communities, going door to door explaining the types of disaster assistance available and how to register. More teams continue to arrive daily.

1,126 inspectors in the field have completed more than 44,000 home inspections. In the immediate aftermath of the storm, critics understandably questioned the federal agency’s lack of contingency plan for disseminating information if victims couldn’t get on the Internet.

A call to FEMA’s news desk, however, found even they didn’t have any non-Internet information readily available beyond suggestions that people call 911 in an emergency. When asked where folks should turn for information if they have no power, a FEMA worker said, “Well, those people who have a laptop with a little battery life on it can try that way. Otherwise, you’re right.”

Such blind spots are perilous to the public, experts say. Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell did reference during a news conference Monday two useful phone numbers — 211 for guidance on emergency shelter locations and 511 for traffic information — and D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray told News Channel 8 that people should call 311 in storm-related emergencies.

But that’s about it for public information of this type.As Glenn notes, disasters are disasters. Bad things are going to happen, some recovery efforts are going to fail in an unpredictable environment, and we shouldn’t make unfair racial and socio-economic accusations about why without some pretty good proof.

But you’d be hard-pressed to find a story about Sandy and FEMA without a sentence like this:

“She applied for FEMA assistance the day after Sandy hit, but said she hadn’t heard back.”

Or this:

“FEMA hasn’t done anything else. The inspector came out and he inspected the damage and that was it. He said he was going to forward it to his headquarters and I will hear from them, that’s it.” When asked if he has heard from anyone? Daily quickly responded, “No.”Then, there’s this.

The effort has now moved from incomplete and incompetent immediate response to the often labyrinthine demands of applying for assistance from the federal government:

“You have to get a copy from your landlord saying that it was your living space,” Jones said. “If you get denied (from flood insurance), get a letter in writing saying what (your insurance provider) won’t cover. Then submit that letter to FEMA and FEMA can send an inspector to inspect your home.”It should come as no surprise that smaller, more flexible organizations are filling gaps where the federal government fails (giant charity Red Cross was criticized, too), and without much of the triplicate form-signing. Many of FEMA’s problems, both during Katrina and now, are due to the nature of a giant bureaucracy. There’s a place for federal response, and tweaks can make it work better, but we shouldn’t close ourselves off from innovative solutions by insisting a bigger FEMA is always a better fix.

In the meantime, thank goodness for the kindness and quick thinking of those who are able to help where needed, neighbor to neighbor, and lessen suffering in what is still a nightmarish situation for many of our countrymen.

Yes! But the blame goes to the audience rather than the media outlet IMO. In fast and furious, a dead border agent story could not buy interest in the story. Sex with a General/former General, that's a story! Petraeus bridges the media double standard. Dems see him as the guy who prosecuted the Iraq war for Bush (not for America, "Betray-us", 'you must suspend belief in reality to listen to him') and R's see him as an Obama appointee, even a potential whistle blower in the Obama administration.-----“This is about something else entirely, and the truth will come out,” Broadwell’s dad, Paul Krantz, told the Daily News outside his home in Bismarck, N.D.

“There is a lot more that is going to come out,” said Krantz, claiming he was not allowed to elaborate. “You wait and see. There’s a lot more here than meets the eye.”

Certainly sex is a part of it, but so too natural and IMHO appropriate curiousity about the character-- and judgement of the head of the CIA e.g. did he actually use gmail for private correspondence? Share classified intel with his mistress? This second other woman seems a curious figure too (from Lebanon, millions in debt, friends to many generals, BSer e.g. diplomatic immunity claim on a 911 phone call etc) , but he was taking her side in a child custody trial? Much here that is curious.

If this is what it takes to bring spotlight to this whole Benghazi matter, , , ,

Email Last night on CNN's 360 with Anderson Cooper, video footage was broadcast that purported to show injuries and victims of Israeli military operations in Gaza. The footage was exposed as fraudulent here on Breitbart News yesterday..

The way in which the New York Times reports good vs. evil is one of the most important stories of our time.

Take the war between Israel and Hamas that is taking place right now.

This war is as morally clear as wars get. Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to annihilating the Jewish state. It runs a theocratic totalitarian state in Gaza, with no individual liberty and no freedom of speech or press. In a nutshell, Hamas is a violent, fascist organization.

Israel, meanwhile, is one the world's most humane states, not to mention a democracy that is so tolerant that Arab members of its parliament are free to express admiration for Hamas.

Over the past decade, Hamas had launched thousands of rockets into Israel with one aim: to kill and maim as many Israeli citizens as possible -- Israelis at work, at play, asleep in their homes, in their cars. Finally, Israel responded by killing Ahmed al-Jabari, the chief organizer of Hamas violence, the Hamas "military commander" as he was known among Palestinians.

In other words, an evil entity made war on a peaceful, decent entity, and the latter responded.

How has the New York Times reported this?

On Friday, on its front page, the Times featured two three-column wide photos. The top one was of Gaza Muslim mourners alongside the dead body of al-Jabari. The photo below was of Israeli Jews mourning alongside the dead body of Mira Scharf, a 27-year-old mother of three.

What possible reason could there be for the New York Times to give identical space to these two pictures? One of the dead, after all, was a murderer, and the other was one of his victims.

The most plausible reason is that the Times wanted to depict through pictures a sort of moral equivalence: Look, sophisticated Times readers, virtually identical scenes of death and mourning on both sides of the conflict. How tragic.

If one had no idea what had triggered this war, one would read and see the Times coverage and conclude that two sides killing each other were both equally at fault.

This is the mainstream (i.e., liberal) media's approach. The Los Angeles Times headline on the same day was: "Israel and Gaza veering down familiar, bitter path,"

Same presentation: two scorpions fighting in a bottle.

Examples are endless. Here is one more:

In 2002, there was widespread Nigerian Muslim opposition to the Miss World pageant scheduled to take place that year in Nigeria. Defending the pageant, a Nigerian female reporter wrote a column in which she said that not only were the contestants not "whores," as alleged by the Muslim protestors, but they were such fine women that "Muhammad would probably have taken one of the contestants for a wife."

That one sentence led to Muslim rioting, the beating and killing of Christians, the burning of churches and the razing of her newspaper's offices.

How did the New York Times report the events?

"Fiery Zealotry Leaves Nigeria in Ashes Again."

No group is identified as responsible. "Fiery zealotry," not Muslim violence, was responsible.

The article then begins: "The beauty queens are gone now, chased from Nigeria by the chaos in Kaduna."

Again, Muslim rioters weren't responsible for chasing the beauty queens out of Nigeria; it was "chaos."

The article concludes that what happened in Kaduna was another example of Africa's "difficulty in reconciling people who worship separately." In other words, Christians and Muslims were equally guilty.

As the flagship news source of the left, the New York Times reveals the great moral failing inherent to leftism -- its combination of moral relativism and the division of the world between strong and weak, Western and non-Western, and rich and poor, rather than between good and evil.

Content sharing, in excerpts, with major media on the forum is mutual - for the record. We normally give credit. They rarely do.

DougMacG, DBMA public forumDecember 03, 2012, posted 10:11:17 AM »"At an interagency teleconference in late April [1994], Susan Rice, a rising star on the NSC who worked under Richard Clarke, stunned a few of the officials present when she asked, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?”http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2362.msg67996#msg67996

ABC World News with Diane Sawyer continues to tout the Obama Administration’s spin that tax hikes on the wealthy are the only solution to the looming “fiscal cliff” catastrophe. According to an analysis from the Media Research Center’s Business and Media Institute, in the three weeks following President Obama’s re-election, World News devoted more than 10 minutes 18 seconds to talk of tax hikes and just 35 seconds to spending cuts (a 17-1 margin).

NBC Nightly News discussed taxes more than twice as often as spending (4 minutes 23 seconds to 1 minute 47 seconds.), while CBS Evening News gave tax hikes only three more minutes of coverage (14 minutes 5 seconds to 10 minutes 12 seconds). However, more than a third of CBS’s spending cut coverage total comes from one story detailing the horrific downside of spending cuts.

ABC was by far the worst offender, refusing to even entertain spending cuts as a viable solution to the Obama Administration’s crushing budget deficits.

The number of reads per post on the various threads of this forum is indeed intriguing. We have many threads with 40-60 reads per post and not a few well above that, with several above 100 reads per post. The Mexico thread on the Spanish language forum (which in great part duplicates the Mexico thread here on P&R) is around 300!

To What Lengths Did Someone Go to Scapegoat George Zimmerman? byBryan Preston

BioDecember 4, 2012 - 11:41 am The “new” photo of George Zimmerman raises some very disturbing issues. Take a look at the black and white version of the photo, which the Florida prosecutor gave to the defense as part of the discovery process shortly after his altercation with Trayvon Martin.

Other than color, what else is missing from this photo?

Can you tell how old George Zimmerman is? To me, he looks like he could be any age from 20 to more than 50. But the graininess and lack of visible hair on the top of his head suggest that he is an older man.

The lack of color in the photo obscures Zimmerman’s race as well. As a friend of mine pointed out to me, the man in that photo is brighter in complexion than the man is in reality. The black and white photo renders Zimmerman a pale white. The whites of his eyes and his facial skin are nearly the same tone. The contrast makes his face emerge harshly from the shadows behind him.

The man in the photo above looks somewhat menacing. The misshapen nose suggests a history of brawls, the color having been drained away, taking with it the reds and purples indicating a fresh wound from a very recent attack. The vacant look in his eyes suggests no remorse for the killing of a young man, which the man in the photo had done moments before the photo was taken.

“This man might be a thug.” That’s the nonverbal message of the photo above.

Now, look again at the color photo. This is the unaltered photo, from which the grainy, black and white version was manufactured.

Seen in color, the “thug” who might be, becomes a wounded young man. Shock and fear ring his eyes. There may be small wounds or acne on his forehead. Blood drips from his nose and his lip appears to be busted open. His nose appears to be freshly broken. Instead of being a white ghoul emerging from shadows, he is a wounded man sitting in a car after a life-changing, possibly life-destroying, event has happened. The ghoul has flesh and blood after all. He bleeds.

From that color photo, taken in color at high resolution by law enforcement officers moments after the altercation, someone manufactured the grainy black and white photo and made the decision to hand that version, but not the full color version, over to Zimmerman’s defense. Who did that? Who manufactured that photo? How did they manufacture it? Why did they manufacture it?

Had the color photo been available in the days after Martin’s unfortunate death, there might never have been a backlash against the Sanford police. There might never have been a national movement to arrest and prosecute Zimmerman. President Obama might never have taken sides with the New Black Panthers, who put a bounty on Zimmerman’s head, and with the usual tragedy trolls who always seek to convert corpses into political talking points. The NBC News edit that made Zimmerman sound racist could have been countered with a color photo showing Zimmerman’s wounds, corroborating his explanation of what happened that night. But someone chose to hide the color photo and manufacture the black and white, so that that photo would tell a different story.

I keep using that word — manufacture — deliberately, because that is what was done here. Someone took the high-resolution digital original and printed it out, then ran it through a copy machine several times to introduce noise, and remove the color and reduce the quality. They may have also taken it into Photoshop to manipulate its contrast and add additional noise. That is manufacturing.

In doing all of this, they deliberately stripped George Zimmerman of his humanity.

Who did this? For what purpose?

Did someone in a position of authority take a look at George Zimmerman’s name, which suggests an older white male rather than a younger Hispanic, then take a look at this young, black victim, and decide to scapegoat Zimmerman deliberately because of the narrative that his name and Trayvon Martin’s racial background provided?

One of the two biggest showstoppers today threatening to shut down USA government and private competitivenes, and force us into immediate recession is the wisdom and experience of raising taxes on the rich. GOP House members are pledged not to do it. The President says no deal without it. The media withholds the facts and then polls the public on the assignment of blame.

France is also losing wealth, millionaires and revenues with even more punitive policies.

I already posted on 'Tax Issues', now I ask here on 'Media Issues', where is this story?

Someone please link footage of broadcast network news leading story or link to front page coverage on the Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times, etc. etc. Even in the Wall Street Journal news sections, not opinion. It isn't an opinion. It's a stubborn fact, and an extremely timely and relevant story.

I whine in general, often, about the need to go to biased, right wing sources to get basic, pertinent, public policy information. But my willingness to dig for data doesn't solve anything politically or economically if only a few right wingers get the information. This story is one specific example.

What FOX news isn't telling us... Why haven't these news stories made it to the only trustworthy news source. Why, oh why, have these stories received a fair and balanced treatment. Conspiracy? Probably. I will continue to watch diligently to see when these important stories covered. And, where is the coverage in the WSJ???

You are right, Guro. The thawing relations between nuclear powers, the rise in population in the B in "BRIC", the eradiciation of a disease (or the rise of others), the dispute between the UAE and Iran, or the HK/China dispute (which will likely not impact the continent or world) or the ... oh, nevermind. There just isn't enough there for news coverage.

OF COURSE there are important matters that do not get on the finite radar screen of human attention! That said, I think our point is that those that DO get put on the radar screen by the pravdas are selected by intellectually dishonest criteria towards political ends.

Neither point contradicts the other as I understand it. Am I missing something?

Excpet that some of the stories in the link posted that were un- or underreported themselves would have HELPED make President Obama's case about many things. The return of jobs to the U.S. is one example. So, why aren't THOSE stories being pushed, hard, by the "pravdas?"

And, seriously, did JK Rowling leave the UK and I missed it? Because, again, if there is ONE person who would benefit, it's her. If she stayed, why did she?

If Obama were to make the case on the purported "return of jobs" to the US the pravdas would be right there with him just as by the sin of omission they fail to report the British data (which is on the radar screen of the professional chattering class) because it would underuct Obana's efforts to raise tax rates with powerful empirical data.

As for Rowling, apart from the human interest hook, who cares? The real point is the net aggregate data, yes?

If Obama were to make the case on the purported "return of jobs" to the US the pravdas would be right there with him just as by the sin of omission they fail to report the British data (which is on the radar screen of the professional chattering class) because it would underuct Obana's efforts to raise tax rates with powerful empirical data.

As for Rowling, apart from the human interest hook, who cares? The real point is the net aggregate data, yes?

Not necessarily. If the millionaires who left aren't the most rich and powerful, that means something different than if the ones who left were spread out from millions to billions. Or just the billionaries. Or in the middle. Or the newly rich. Or the ...

Aggregate trends help to understand issues, but they are not necessarily the issue itself.

"What FOX news isn't telling us... Why haven't these news stories made it to the only trustworthy news source."

Did anyone mention Fox News? Why don't you just answer the question?

BTW, the F.A. article was interesting, but pretty much unimportant trivia mixed with stories that people that pay attention already know. As an example, HK straining against the slow squeeze of the mainland has been going on one way or another since 1997.